HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-10-11 BOS Packet - Released SELECTMEN'S MEETING
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
Cary Memorial Building-Estabrook Hall
7:00 PM
AGENDA
ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION
1. Public Comments on the Future of Lexington's Trash and Recycling Program(90 7:00 p.m.
min.)
2. Special Town Meeting: Board Positions/Discussion(10 min.) 8:30 p.m.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
1. Exemption 6:Potential Purchase of Land, 44 Adams Street(15 min.) 8:40 p.m.
ADJOURN
1. Anticipated Adjournment 8:55 p.m.
Board of Selectmen meeting for Public Comments on the Future of Lexington's Trash&
Recycling Program will be offered again on Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 8:45 a.m. in the Dining
Room, Lexington Community Center, 39 Marrett Road.
The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Selectmen is scheduled for Monday,
October 16, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Selectmen Meeting Room, Town Office Building, 1625
Massachusetts Avenue.
Hearing Assistance Device.v Available on Reque.vt �� �� �
All agenda time and the order of items are approximate and
subject to change. Recorded by LexMedia
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
Public Comments on the Future of Lexington's Trash and Recycling Program(90 min.)
PRESENTER: ITEM
David Pinsonneault, Director of NUMBER:
Public Works; Robert Beaudoin,
Superintendent of Environmental S erv. 1'1
SUMMARY:
No vote is requested for this agenda item.
DPW staff will make a brief presentation on future options for Lexington's household trash and recycling
program. The Selectmen will then take public comments on the options.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
NA
FOLLOW-UP:
Board to continue its deliberations on trash/recycling program.
DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA:
10/11/2017 7:00 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
D Q'ira ,a RUr tia>nr V irssh/Ra 4 ya,liur.g..TM Q'ira a RUr tia>nr.
b
U
J
1713 c�
!' LEXINGI'GN
G
U
C)� 9111
1 0
w
C�
O �
LLJ
O ^^;''
cr.
U do
LMU
0.
U U
u tio
ct
O 4�
O
7b
cn 4-5
O 4-j
Ov °� °
o � �
4-J O
c� 4-J
con
c
i
cc
cim (I-ID
m on=
N H
U � �
N O '�
cc
z3 H w O
ca
0
H H
� N �
ow
co
MINEIM
� U
-d
aL
cc
° o o a
co U
U
U N •,-,
U :S
w
O �
0
U
co
S
cc3
41 M tio
r�1
cc
co
r—+ fC3 c'C3
o
U U U ,� O
O
U
4�0
S
m
U � �
co
— U O
~ O t
C4C O
mommm
_O �+ S 4)
-C� O •'-' U
cc
4� tio
Q p O
O
O (t 7:S '� dj p O v�
cc
U �
OU C) C) 0
r
a
v yr
� 7
� 1
A
f � ,
r �
f ry
� i 1
a'
1 ,
a
k
i
�l
Y
Ao
i
�f
,
b ,
n�
Mai
l
n all J11
4,
e�
lr
cc
Cl.
r0 NNE=
0
f lii %1 ij% 1
cc
Fm-
CD
Cc
i
� r i
N rl�ir✓
L/1 yf
P Go,
r ✓
01 j
r
O �
WJ
^^ll 1
O G �
UPwon=Cc
•�
EMORMSEN
U ,1
cc
cc
O
c�
W
O
2
4�
0
cc
on=
CD
cc
ca
O-j
U
O
U
H
0
ct•
0•
cc
L.
ow
O �
v�
O
� � O
(� two �--�
tio
u
to
ca
a�
o
Cf) 4-j +j
� l
0 U
ca
L.
.roo� (1)
a�
�-+ 0 u U
U
. rooq
c�j
a�
cc
•r--q Ow
Pool
r
�� Q •Pool� ;..4 O
�� IIIUIIIVuuuuw
Ull
Ir
�'^• y ��
1� wo,
i/
+� 4-'
N �
.............
4-j
� O
,�; �yrrirrr�s r,
Q�
l �` s ✓ r s r a / " r a�
it a mu Ary ,� �lal( y
��� x 6 /lr'a � 9✓��,(�`yr � irN � if
r��
7�
C
cn
,
�
m ENO=
r
I �
r �
I(9irr4rt
1 1�a '2iv ',
N �
N
con
con
cc
cc3 bq � �, bJJ
ow
con
con
m Now=mmumom
U Cl)
. con ;-q
o� 4--J o �'
ca —con
ekeC/)
O
� O �
O
V
� O
I li,
SIMI �
��i/�r/
r
s p
`R
w
r
4-J b�q
o�
4 �n
ccU a�
O O
i N O b,A � •+,U'
tio
"tj O H
o tz 0
0
WJ WJ WJ WJ
U U U U U U
ood-
v1 "t
� � o
.�, ° t-o
O �
4�
m
0
C'C3
Q�
Q�
Q�
0
C'C3
MM0
0
Q �
0 � 0
U � U
rN
J--j
�J
O tjo
0�
O
0 0
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
Special Town Meeting: Board Positions/Discussion(10 min)
PRESENTER: ITEM
NUMBER:
Suzanne Barry, Chair
1.2
SUMMARY:
Board has yet to take position on STM 2017-3,Article 2:Amend Zoning Bylaw-45, 55, 65 Hayden Avenue
SUGGESTED MOTION:
FOLLOW-UP:
DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA:
10/11/2017 8:30 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
D Q'1<uivinrg.TM Rxud Roco nnnnunn dationr Ra.porrt Raclkup Matorrinl
D S M 2-3 Pos,it ion,C"gr.ut Raclkrrgn Matorrinl
tAoON14,� Town ofLexington
PLANNING BOARD
?ti Richard L. Canale,Chair
)d( Z 1625 Massachusetts Avenue Ginna Johnson,Clerk
` Lexington,MA 02420 Robert Creech
���r„ Tel(781)698-4560 Charles Hornig
APRry t 6 'e PlarIlnin a),lexingtornna. ov Nancy Corcoran-Ronchetki
wwwlexingtoinna.gov/planning Michael Leon,Associate
PLANNING BOARD REPORT
TO TOWN MEETING
STM-3 ARTICLE 2,PROPOSAL TO CREATE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TWO
45, 55,&65 HAYDEN AVENUE
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Board recommends that the motion under Article 2 be APPROVED.
The Board recommends this project to Town Meeting because we believe the project will be
beneficial to the Town. Our reasons include:
• The proposed project is an appropriate use of the site;
• The proposed site design and architecture is of high quality;
• There is a positive fiscal benefit to the community for the foreseeable future; and
• Although there is a transportation impact on the area and throughout Town, the Town has
negotiated a mitigation package.
To arrive at this conclusion the Board utilized the documents and plans listed below, as well as
the testimony at the Public Hearing. The Board encourages Town Meeting Members and
interested residents to review them as well —this report is not a substitute for the submitted
materials. This report only discusses the issues identified during the Board's public process as
significant. The documents cited below are viewable on the Town's website
www.lexingtonma. _gov/planning-office/pages/45-65-hayden-avenue-proposed-pplanning-office/rages/45-65-hayden-avenue-proposed-pdd.
• The first-submitted Preliminary Site Development and Use Plan (PSDUP), dated August
23, 2017. The PSDUP is an application for a comprehensive rezoning of a site and
comprises both regulatory and non-regulatory material. The non-regulatory material is
there to substantiate and justify the reasons for the rezoning and guide the Town's actions
on Site Plan Review and other related matters. The regulatory material includes the
proposed zoning text, the zoning map amendment, and architectural renderings that will
guide the Board through the site plan review process should Town Meeting create the
new zoning district.
• The revised PSDUP, dated September 29, 2017. The revised PSDUP reflects all the
changes made to the proposal since the original application was filed. This version
reflects the proposal that Town Meeting will be voting on.
• The Memorandum of Understanding, signed October 2, 2017 (the MOU). An MOU is a
voluntary, binding contract used by the Town to refine the scope, substance, and certain
- I -
Planning Board Report on Article 2,PDD-2(45,55,&65 Hayden Avenue)
Page 2 of 7
special conditions of proposed developments seeking a rezoning. It is an agreement
between the Town, through the Board of Selectmen, and the applicant. The MOU was
negotiated on behalf of the Town by senior staff. The MOU generally contains non-
zoning items related to the redevelopment of the site, memorializing community benefit
items and mitigation payments.
SITE AND DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
As explained by the applicant in their application, the purpose of the proposed rezoning is to
permit the development of a new laboratory-office building, of approximately 219,000 gross
square feet, and an associated structured parking building, of approximately 361,000 gross
square feet of square feet resulting in a total of 597,000 gross floor area of lab office building
gross floor area and 564,000 gross floor area in garages.
Relation to Natural Features
The Board identified on-site natural features directly impacted by this proposal; the proposed
plan will uncover(called daylighting) an on-site stream and restore its banks and associated
wetland resources, increasing the overall amount of green space on the site by 30,000 SF, and
permanently preserve another 1.6 acres of land through a conservation restriction. A concern
voiced by residents focused on the public's right to park on the site and access the Hayden
Woods' trail network during business hours. This is discussed separately below.
Development Intensity
Gross Floor Area Summar Existin Pro osed
BUILDINGS
45/55 Hayden Ave 178,430 SF...�.
65 Hayden Ave 198,960 SF...�.
75 Hayden Ave—NEW 219,279 SF
TOTAL BUILDING GFA 596,669 SF
GARAGES �.
45 Hayden Ave 19,368 SF...�.
65 Hayden Ave 183,632 SF...�.
75 Hayden Ave -NEW 360,883 SF
TOTAL GARAGE GFA 563,883 SF
Contingency 49,448 SF
........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ........
PROPOSED GFA ZONING CAP 1,210,000 SF
Adequacy of Vehicular & Pedestrian Access, & Internal Circulation
The applicant's treatment of traffic and parking was one of the primary issues discussed by the
Board, the public, and the applicant during the public hearing. It was also an area of emphasis
for the Planning Office.
Given the size of the proposed project and the relatively short timeframe the Town had to review
the PSDUP application, the Planning Office had a third-party peer review conducted of the
Traffic Impact and Access Study. This review, conducted by Howard Stein Hudson at the
applicant's expense, revealed several minor issues (subsequently addressed by the applicant and
Planning Board Report on Article 2,PDD-2(45,55,&65 Hayden Avenue)
Page 3 of 7
reflected in the amended PSDUP application dated September 29, 2017) and one larger issue
described in more depth below.
Staff s initial review revealed a discrepancy in the modeling of Hayden Avenue's intersections
with Waltham Street and the Route 2 WB off-ramp. The applicant's traffic consultant initially
modeled both locations as having a police detail during future No-Build and Build peak hour
conditions, when in fact there are no plans for this. The consultant revised their model to reflect
no traffic controls at either location, which resulted in significant delays during both the No-
Build and Build conditions. The Board recommends that, to the maximum extent possible, the
transportation mitigation payment outlined in the MOU be used by the Town to address the
redesign of these intersections, and especially including safer bicycle and pedestrian access as
outlined in the South Lexington Transportation Study.
The proposed Travel Demand Management(TDM)policies are outlined in the amended Traffic
Impact and Access Study (TIAS). Should Town Meeting approve this article, the Board will
refine and finalize the TDM plan during its review of the site plan at the time building permits
are sought. This site has a record of strong TDM and the new owner of the site has an excellent
record with the Town at its Hartwell Avenue properties. This Plan presents an opportunity to
transform twentieth century TDM policies into twenty-first TDM implementation with the
increased on-site density.
On-site Environmental Effects
Should Town Meeting approve this rezoning request, the applicant will be required to file a
Notice of Intent(NOI)with the Conservation Commission. As mentioned above, this approval
will likely finalize the plans for the daylighting and restoration of the on-site stream and nearby
resource areas, as well as the overall stormwater mitigation plan. The applicant met informally
with the Commission (August 7, 2017) and identified nothing facially problematic with the
scheme shown on the plans. The Commission is expected to hold the rights to the conservation
restriction on the 1.6 acres of open space mentioned above.
Potential Effects on Nearby Properties
The Board's review identified the proposal's proximity to the Hayden Woods conservation area
as a concern, specifically how the public's ability to park and access the trails would be affected,
as well as concern with potential increased on-site noise activities that could affect the
conservation area's ambience. The applicant has agreed to a noise protocol that will be
developed and incorporated in the Site Plan Review stage.
Currently, the public may park on site to access the trails, but there is no formal agreement as to
the number of spaces that may be used or where on the lot they may be. Per the signed MOU,
there will be four dedicated spaces available to the public from dawn to dusk, seven days a week,
at the trailhead, with additional parking to be made available outside of regular business hours
(i.e., 9 AM— 5 PM).
Planning Board Report on Article 2,PDD-2(45,55,&65 Hayden Avenue)
Page 4 of 7
The applicant has stated publically its willingness to go beyond what is stated in the MOU to
allow additional parking during business hours. The Board intends to negotiate this additional
parking, during regular business hours, under the site plan review process.
The applicant has also stated an intent to work with the Town to explore the possibility of
establishing a transit shelter as part of an area-wide transit plan. The Board will work with the
applicant to finalize the site's Parking and Transportation Demand Management measures during
site plan review.
The Quality of the Proposed Design
The Board felt that the quality of the proposal was excellent and would continue to reflect well
on the community; however, a final review of building elevations and site features such as
landscaping should be left to the site plan review process, should it get that far. The Board
principally concerned itself with the overall site design and site planning issues.
The applicant included conceptual renderings of the proposed development in the PSDUP
application. There was no public comment on this point, nor did the Board recognize it as a
point of concern.
Impact on Public Facilities & Services
The Board concerned itself with the essential municipal utilities of water and sewer. Other
services, like police, fire, and public works were discussed under the fiscal analysis. Initially, the
Board relied upon the Engineering Division's review of the proposal plans given during staff s
Development Review Team meeting. As no issues were identified, the Board issued no report.
However, as the process developed, concerns were raised by the abutters and the Board to revisit
this issue. A request was made that the Engineering Division conduct a consolidated review of
the water and sewer demands in the area. Again, Engineering did not identify any problems.
Analysis of Town Fiscal Considerations
The applicant included a detailed analysis of the fiscal impacts on the Town,prepared by Mark
Fougere Associates, a private planning firm. The analysis points to a net benefit of
approximately $1.8 million per year of additional tax revenue. Put another way, for every tax
dollar brought in by the site, the Town will only spend 20 cents to service it. The project will
also generate several hundred thousand dollars in one-time building permit fees during
construction. The analysis did not include impacts on the roadway infrastructure, which are
addressed elsewhere.
Policy Analysis
How this proposal fits into other published Town policies on land development, land
management, and land use was not fully debated among the Board members nor was it raised by
many members of the public. That said, this type of project seems to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan's opinion that future commercial development should seek redevelopment
opportunities within existing commercial zones rather than the expansion through the increase of
the geographical bounds of commercial districts.
Planning Board Report on Article 2,PDD-2(45,55,&65 Hayden Avenue)
Page 5 of 7
The South Lexington Transportation Study outlines the transportation infrastructure inadequacies
in the South Lexington area. The Town has not yet developed an implementation plan to address
the current deficiencies. The Board believes that the overall benefits of this proposal outweigh
the increased traffic issues and recommends that the applicants financial contribution, noted
above, be used towards developing such a plan. The Board urges the Town to complete a plan
before any new general levels of zoning intensity are implemented in this commercial area.
The study also identified that, due to the Town's existing traffic operation standards (calling for
peak hour conditions no worse than Level of Service D)the potential for additional growth
would be constrained, beyond the growth already approved at the time the study was conducted.
The study went on to note that if the Town desired additional development in the area it should
adopt an alternative standard, for example that utilized by Massachusetts' Environmental
Protection Agency (MEPA), which requires that major traffic impacts, associated with a
proposed development, be no worse than "no-build" conditions without said development. As
the Town is embarking on a complete revision of its Comprehensive Plan, there is an opportunity
to allow residents to advocate for a new standard that balances different levels of economic
development against acceptable levels of transportation impacts throughout the Town.
Purposes of Rezoning
The applicant submitted a narrative explaining why they are seeking to increase the intensity of
their development(see the cover letter of the PSDUP). This statement is consistent with the
purposes of zoning as expressed in the Massachusetts Act of 1975, Chapter 808, §2A. Beyond
that, the Board feels that this project maintains an appropriate balance between land use,
transportation impacts, and the scenic and aesthetic qualities of the Hayden Avenue corridor.
The importance of this point was not commented on generally but was the focus of specific
issues noted elsewhere in this report.
Comparison of Existing versus Proposed Zoning
Generally, the uses proposed do not significantly differ from those in the existing CD District;
the rezoning is principally to allow for the two new structures. Further expansion is not possible
under the current zoning. The allowable uses are proposed to broaden slightly in response to
market demands that campuses like this provide a small amount of amenity space to employees,
such as cafes, workout spaces, locker rooms, etc. The proposed zoning text that would control
both the dimensional standards and uses allowed in the district can be found in the PSDUP text,
Section 6.
The Board believes that the applicant envisions at least 50 % of the net floor area in the new
building to be first-class lab space including associated office space.
Other Planning Considerations
There were few if any other issues raised during the Board's review of this proposal, including
the informal meetings with the Board over the summer, unrelated to those discussed above.
There are several non-zoning related items being addressed in the MOU, which is an agreement
between the applicant and the Board of Selectmen. The MOU, which was endorsed by the
applicant and the Board of Selectmen on October 2, secures funds for off-site transportation
Planning Board Report on Article 2,PDD-2(45,55,&65 Hayden Avenue)
Page 6 of 7
impacts, annual payments to the Lexington Nature Trust Fund, and a one-time lump sum
payment to the Cary Memorial Library Foundation. Again, the Board recommends that the
transportation mitigation payment be dedicated to further develop the recommendations
identified in the South Lexington Transportation Study. In addition, the MOU references travel
demand management policies that will be finalized during Site Plan Review,provides for the
additions to the conservation area and related access improvements, and limited access to the
facility for community meetings.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING
The public hearing on this application opened on September 13, 2017, and continued to
September 27, 2017. The minutes of these meetings are on file with the Planning Office and
summarized below.
September 13, 2017
The hearing was opened at approximately 7:45 p.m., with approximately six people in the
audience. Present from the applicant team was Mr. Thomas Ragno,principal and CEO of King
Street Properties, Mr. Robert Albro, King Street's Managing Director, Doug Hartnett of
Highpoint Engineering, and Rick Cue and Derek Johnson of Perkins and Will, the project
architects.
The new building (which they call 75 Hayden) is to be a multiple tenant building and to help
transform the site into a premier life science campus. An associated parking garage will be built
on top of the existing surface parking lot. The team presented the plans, demonstrating how the
scale of the new buildings is consistent with the existing structures. The new lab/office building
will be about 57 feet tall.
Mr. Albro concluded by describing the project's benefits, including fiscal and environmental,
noting the addition of 1.65 acres to the existing conservation restriction, and a strong PTDM
proposal.
The Board then asked a number of questions about the proposal, touching on transportation,
public access to the trailhead, the height of the proposed garage, the proposed community space,
the landscaping. The public in attendance raised questions about the parking for the trail, and
traffic issues in the area, particularly at the Waltham Street and Hayden Avenue intersection.
September 27, 2017
The hearing was opened at approximately 7:15 p.m.,with approximately five people in the audience.
Present from the applicant team was Mr. Thomas Ragno,principal and CEO of King Street Properties,
Mr. Robert Albro, King Street's Managing Director, Doug Hartnett of Highpoint Engineering, Christian
Lemon and Brooke Whiting Cash of Lemon Brooke LLC, the landscape architects, and Robert Michaud
of MDM Transportation Consultants.
The applicant refined their PSDUP submission based on feedback received during the September 13
Planning Board meeting. The project team reviewed the updates made to the submission,which included
identifying maximum dimensions and parking spaces, an update on the traffic analysis, landscaping plans,
and provided an update on the status of the MOU.
Planning Board Report on Article 2,PDD-2(45,55,&65 Hayden Avenue)
Page 7 of 7
There was discussion between the Board and the applicant on the specifics of what Zoning Regulations
would govern the review of the site plan,if Town Meeting approves the project. There was also further
conversation about the details on the public access and parking for the trailhead to Hayden Woods.
It is expected that the applicant will file a formal amendment to its PSDUP application by September 29,
in order to allow the Planning Board to see all the comments that have been discussed throughout the
hearing,including the MOU for its meeting of October 4, at which time the Board is expected to take a
position on this article.
RECORD OF VOTE
On October 4, 2017, the Planning Board, by a vote of 4 to 0, recommends approval of Article 2
to Town Meeting.i
Members in Favor of the Recommendation:
1 Please note that the Planning Board was missing a member on the evening of October 4,and intends to revote its
recommendation before the article is taken up by Town Meeting(anticipated on October 18). At the close of the
public hearing on September 27,this member had informally voted in support of the motion.
j
/
J
a. a.
cn cn
\ \
k k
m » � » » 4 » » » » » » 4 » » 4
% » » 44 % 4z » » » » z 4 » » 4
a. » » » » a.
4 » » » » » » 4 » » 4
2 » » » » 2 4 » » » » » » 4 » » 4
� w w use ea- a- = u = _ & e
ow c = = o � c » > � @ _ � @c @@ _
§ a. § a -
0 cn
w 0 w §
e m e
o k k o k 2 \ / 7
CL o ® o / & J \ $ S
e o e - c o m
$ c-
/ k Q / k E \ \ \ $ CO
Q ; 2 ° c o
k CL \ c k CL 0 E \ \ / < o
cn g � ) § @ '
f t S m } = t \ 2 a a s
k % c \ 0 k % \ E @ \ \ k Jƒ ƒ `
a .g2 § D < :& m = o / e « § /
. aG = o . � % �/ c = § = o o = = o
E 2 = e { , ; CO ± e o >
E � 0 me E _ � ` � E mac0 ® \ / \
o m - o .o o ® - > o e c 0 3
c c = = m m _ m c c c
e o c m e = c m - = 2 2 ? .0 2 z g J
z e 7 e CO z r / E _ # 2 2 g o f a /
o & 3 3 z e o & = 2 / D % a > 0 g ® > a
cm .o o 4 .o m e b e a = & o m
F = o } E F / G e z o = 2 m c m m
O g o ® m ± O g o e 5 m 3 3 I e e
zo CO m = z 6 o o) f = ® _
w / &\ 5 ( / J ® � \ � \ 5 k \ k
w m 7 = LL 0- W m « % « & & ; = 2 m c a b
o m c c E ° m 3 = e = c - - . ;
= m c c o = 7 I *o = c.2/ 2 2 E E 5
zc = � '� e zc = _ = = gym uE E <
0 « p o A } « c e c 2 < 2 A } % } ° ° }
Q o e o o c o g o = o o e e
e ¥ % o 0 o e ¥ e c c a % > a a § o 0 0 0
� % 99 22 � ? { / 0 = � 330 � 22 99
= = = = ® f = & &= c & & kk
u b e e = e e U b c c c c o Q c o o c m o o e e
w = _ = m = = w = o 0 0 0 = m o & & o L & & _ _
cn << < < cn < < < < 3Lu<<<< ¢¢ ¢ ¢
w � m NTr _ � a co = w = c / Q2 2 /
a
� 222 22 u22222 2222 ) 22 22
e o 0 0 2 / e o 0 0 0 > 2 2 2 2 2 2
■ see - ■ asses - - - - -
« « < # # « << < << # # # # # < < < <
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
LEXINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
Exemption 6: Potential Purchase of Land, 44 Adams Street (15 min.)
PRESENTER: ITEM
NUMBER:
Carl F. Valente, Town Manager
ES.1
SUMMARY:
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Move that the Board go into Executive Session, under Exemption 6, to consider the purchase, exchange,
lease or value of real property, 44 Adams Street, and to reconvene in Open Session. Further, that as
Chairman, I declare that an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the
Town.
FOLLOW-UP:
DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME ON AGENDA:
10/11/2017 8:40 p.m.